Neo-Conservative: Say What?

By Parker Blackman, AlterNet
Posted on March 15, 2005, Printed on February 11, 2012
http://www.alternet.org/story/21495/neo-conservative%3A_say_what

Over the past few months a great deal of time has been spent thinking about, analyzing and discussing the election and why we lost and they won. Two of the dominant themes of these discussions have been values and framing. As we know, Karl Rove and the Republicans succeeded in framing their candidate as a strong, unwavering leader in uncertain times, while framing Kerry as a flip flopper without a moral compass, willing to do or say anything to get elected.

As we move forward, everyone is asking essentially the same two questions: what do we as Democrats stand for? And how do we talk about it in simple, compelling, value-laden terms? There has already been some great writing and thinking done on this issue, and for good reason. To come from a position of strength we must present a positive alternative that lets Americans who didn't vote Democrat see that they are more like us than they thought they were.

The other piece of the puzzle, and the focus of this paper, is the question of how we frame the Republican leadership. We can't afford to wait. The Republican leadership has been moving swiftly to frame and act on a sweeping, radical agenda that, in the next four years, could demonstrably change the course of history in our country and we cannot allow that to happen. One of the most important roles we as communicators can play is to provide a general, thematic framework to describe the Republican agenda that everyone on the progressive side of the fight – no matter what their specific issue may be – can embrace, repeat and drive home. So here are a couple of ideas for a broad framework describing the Republican agenda, as well as a specific recommendation about what to call our opposition.

Reckless, Irresponsible, Extreme, Radical

We all know that the current leaders of the Republican party – be it President Bush, Tom Delay, or Bill Frist – represents the extreme-right wing of their party. But most of America doesn't see them that way because nobody has successfully framed them as such. So let's start calling them what they are – irresponsible, reckless, extreme, and radical. These are four adjectives that I think most accurately describe their agenda. More important still, these adjectives imply un-American values and speak to a flaw in their collective character.

This group of leaders is endangering the safety of our country, our children's future, our health, and other things we hold close to our hearts. Most Americans are moderate in their views; extremism on either side of the political spectrum makes them uncomfortable. Reckless behavior makes them very uncomfortable. Americans would rather that their leaders be conservative in the true sense of the word. The majority of Americans don't want Social Security dismantled. They don't want us to fight an endless war in Iraq with more of their sons and daughters maimed or killed. They don't want their air polluted and their water poisoned, and they don't want their public school system destroyed.

Most Americans think of themselves as living responsible lives, looking out for their children's future, and making good choices that will provide stability in their careers. Many of us give back to society whether it's at church, at school, or through volunteering and charity work. If we frame the Republican leadership as extreme and reckless, we are painting a picture that runs contrary to how people behave in their own lives, and what they expect from their leaders.

Again, this frame can be applied to any issue – health care, Iraq, Social Security, oil drilling in the Arctic – thereby allowing all progressive interest groups to repeat a singular theme as it applies to their particular issue.

An important reason this frame works is that, in the aftermath of an election, people who voted for George W. Bush don't want to be told that they voted for the wrong guy. But, if you can create space in some voters' minds that the Bush administration's current agenda isn't the one they signed up for, or that they are not getting the leadership they voted for, you give those voters space to rationalize moving away from Bush and the Republican leadership.

By creating this wedge, we open the door for some Republicans and moderate Democrats who voted for Bush and the congressional leadership to say, "Well I'm a Republican but I can't support a reckless agenda like this one." That way, voters don't have to repudiate their core beliefs or admit that they were wrong to vote for Bush. And we successfully appeal to their values and drive a wedge between where they are and where they perceive the Republican leadership is headed.

Not Conservative, Not Neo-Conservative

I also want to raise the issue of what language we should not use to describe the Republican leadership: conservative and neo-conservative. For many Americans the word "conservative" has positive connotations beyond politics and in their own lives. A majority of Americans are conservative or cautious with their money and with the decisions they make about their children's health and education. Being conservative implies saving something, thinking ahead, being safe, showing good judgment. "Neo-Conservative" doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone outside of the beltway or heavily involved in politics. By using these words, we are either reinforcing a positive framework for Republicans, or we are using language that is, at best, benign since nobody knows what it means.

Therefore, I propose that from this moment forward the progressive community immediately stop using either of these words to describe the Republican leadership and their agenda. So what specific phrase should we use instead? What phrase can we use to brand the Republican leadership and force them in the box we want them in?

The reckless right wing of the Republican Party

By labeling them as such we begin to marginalize them and drive a wedge deeper in the GOP between those who follow right-wing radicals, and those who are increasingly uncomfortable with the leadership of their party. Take my mother for example: fiscal conservative, social moderate/liberal who voted for Bush Sr. but is very uncomfortable with the current direction of the Republican party and did not vote for George W. Bush. Republicans have successfully branded "liberal" as elitist and out of touch with mainstream America; we must do the same to them by stigmatizing the kind of Republican that George W. Bush, Tom Delay, and Bill Frist represent.

Attacking Their Morality

My Fenton colleague Michelle Mulkey grew up just outside of Portland, Ore. in a very religious family. In fact, her father is a preacher in an evangelical Christian church. Growing up, Michelle went to church every Sunday. She told me recently that being progressive and being an evangelical Christian don't have to be mutually exclusive. But progressives must communicate their values and the pitfalls of the Republican leadership in ways that will really resonate with her father and the regulars at his church.

Michelle told me: "Virtually every Sunday my dad preaches that 'you can't just be a good Christian for an hour every Sunday. To truly be a good Christian you have to live your values. Don't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.'"

This last line provides us with a good opportunity to frame Republicans as immoral and hypocritical. They are masters at masking their agenda behind feel-good language. It's our job to strip away the window dressing to expose the bleak agenda beneath the surface. So let's start calling them on it: you can't talk the talk if you don't walk the walk. We can apply that frame to their troubling policy positions on Iraq, Social Security, the environment, providing prescription drugs for seniors, and a host of other issues.

For example, last August, a report commissioned by the Bush administration described a range of options on the near term future in Iraq. Those options ranged from bleak to total anarchy and chaos. That very same day, President Bush gave a speech on how the situation in Iraq was improving. Democrats in Congress pointed out this contradiction. What they didn't do was provide a larger context for this outrageous behavior – as yet another example of the Bush administration's doublespeak. And history is repeating itself with the recently-leaked CIA reports on escalating security risks in Iraq, in contrast to the administration's rosy spin.

If we can consistently apply this framework – through which Americans can reevaluate Bush and the Republican leadership – the American people will stop seeing these events as a disparate list of complaints by the minority party, and start seeing them as part of a pattern of reckless, irresponsible, and ultimately unacceptable behavior. Repetition of this message will help us to chip away at their perceived occupation of the moral high ground – a perception that has been a key to their electoral success.

Taking Advantage of Existing Narratives

U.C. Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff teaches us that people make sense of the world through metaphor and a limited number of über-narratives and frameworks. The media is no exception.

Here are two existing narratives that provide us with opportunities to frame the Republican leadership in a negative way.

1. Republicans Control Everything. So Why Are They Fighting?

When Sen. Arlen Specter was up for chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reporters – who love a good fight when they see one – jumped on the fact that, even though the Republicans increased their majority in both the House and Senate, the party remains fractured by infighting. And that fight extended to the Specter debate.

The mounting deficit, Social Security "reform," depleted and despondent troops, and ongoing fighting in Iraq are other issues that provide us with openings to turn this narrative to our advantage. By highlighting the reckless nature of the Republican leadership and by demonstrating how the extreme right-wing faction of the party is clashing with Republican moderates, we can reinforce the fact that the party leadership is so extreme that even members of their own party – true fiscal conservatives and social moderates – are feeling uncomfortable with the agenda.

2. Payback Time for the Christian Right

The Christian right has been widely credited for helping Bush win the election. Now there is expectation that the Republican Party owes "payback" to the evangelical Christian community. There is widespread speculation, fueled by the media, that, when Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist steps down, President Bush will put forward an anti-choice nominee certain to tip the balance against Roe v. Wade. During the presidential debates, Bush repeatedly claimed he would put no judges to a litmus test on abortion. If and when the time comes, we need to use the right frame to call him on it.

Time to Turn the Tables

These two narratives provide progressives with opportunities to advance our language about the Republicans' reckless leadership and their agenda, and beat them at their own frame-game. There are many more such opportunities.

For too long the Republican Party has been on the offensive, attacking Democrats and our programs, keeping us on our heels. The cliché in sports, "the best defense is a good offense" is true here. We must go on the offensive, attack President Bush and the Republican leadership and put them on the defensive. Now is the time to turn the tables.

Parker Blackman is deputy general manager and managing director of Fenton Communications' West Coast office. This article originally appeared on the Fenton web site.

© 2012 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21495/